4/2/2024 - bullmrkt wrote:

It has been six months since I last tasted this wine, and I must say, it's now living up to my expectations as a Saint Cosme. However, I've noticed a quality issue with this particular vintage. There seems to be a bottle variation that I haven't come across in the past. It's unfortunate to see such inconsistency in a wine that I've always held in high regard.

12/3/2023 - bullmrkt wrote:

It looks like there's some bottle variation here. My first bottle was excellent, but this one is almost expressionless, with the faintest hint of taint on the nose. Drinkable but a waste of time. Bummer.

9/7/2023 - bullmrkt wrote:

Unfortunately, I’ve also had an unusual experience with this wine. I don't recall anything off about the bottle I had last year, but this one had hints of flaws unlike any I've detected prior. Kind of oxidative but not really…it’s difficult to describe. I wonder what's going on with these? (Well stored in a temp/humidity-controlled cellar.)

9/4/2023 - bullmrkt wrote:

This is not ready. Drying, harsh tannins, ripe fruit, and high alcohol. I’ve had some enjoyable Monbousquet at 10-12 years old, but this is becoming a concern at age 8. Although, I’ve seen more drastic turnarounds. 🤷🏻‍♂️

7/2/2023 - bullmrkt wrote:

I had a bottle of this 4-years ago, almost to the day, and it paled in comparison to this one—totally unremarkable. Now, it leaps out of the glass with a rich BdB nose and palate, really signing. Wow. Lovely chardonnay and complete transformation.

4/4/2023 - bullmrkt wrote:

This is excellent and especially so when considering the price tag, which was only about $30 for me. Fabulous nose with a hint of Burg barnyard and well balanced, clean palate. This went down fast with our pasta. Great QPR.

6/8/2022 - bullmrkt wrote:

Smells like viognier and hits like tequila.

Seriously though, interesting nose and the front end of the palate has some yummy fruit, but the finish becomes bitter with alcohol.

2/13/2022 - bullmrkt wrote:

Full throttle, sweet, and approachable style. There’s a pleasant complexity beneath the big fruit and alcohol, but as others have noted, those subtle qualities gradually fade as the more muscular components beat your palate into submission. It’s immediately delicious and fun, but not a style I can enjoy on a regular basis.

1/13/2022 - bullmrkt wrote:

I'd have to agree with the 95pt rating here. Drinking fabulously. I don't recall my last 2 bottles, opened over a year ago, being nearly as appealing and not worth 2x the standard bottling. Wow, what a bit of age did to this.

A little pleasant funk on the nose and elegant (lithe!) palate absolutely devoid of any sensation of alcohol. Clean finish. Delicious. My wife kept pouring more for herself and we finished the bottle over dinner no problem.

12/7/2021 - bullmrkt wrote:

This has really improved in the past year, drinking like a proper white burg now. Lovely nose, bright acidity and quite a long finish for this level.

11/22/2021 - bullmrkt Likes this wine:

Whoa, much different experience than the first bottle (of 6), which wasn’t bad but just came across fairly average. Clearly flawed in hindsight.

Very pale translucent color, appeared diluted while pouring. Stinky barnyard nose screamed Burgundy, which eventually gave way to a lovely floral/rose aromas. Acidic, tannic palate, which sounds bad but it’s delicious, with just enough fruit to bring it all together. Long, lingering finish.

This seems like it could hold for a long time, but it’s so good now I’m not sure I’d risk it. Unfortunately, as with the nose, my experience with Brunellos is about as spotty as Burgundy–plenty of flawed bottles. Too bad, because I’m sure it’s turned off thousands of would-be fans.

My wife kept coming back for more, clearly approves. Great pairing with our lasagna tonight.

4/10/2021 - bullmrkt wrote:

Not much to add to previous notes on flavor profile and I agree on score too. This is a big wine, dark fruits and tannic, lots of everything, but kept fresh and balanced by acidity. Upon opening, the nose was almost nonexistent but opened up a bit with a little over an hour in the decanter. Definitely give this one at least a couple hours in decanter, or maybe open it and set upright the morning of. Still quite primary, roughly the beginning of drinking window here. This is going to be a long distance runner and I suspect 30yrs will be a layup for well-stored bottles.

2/6/2021 - bullmrkt wrote:

James Kim’s prior note is spot-on. Tart cherry and eucalyptus profile, a bit earthy, and nearly perfect acid/fruit balance. Fairly complex. On the more austere end of the spectrum as far as Cali pinots go and I welcome that. Lots of personality!

2/5/2021 - bullmrkt wrote:

Little hint of cedar and dark fruit in the nose but the palate is just oak and tannins. Pretty bitter. Not their best vintage.

1/22/2021 - bullmrkt Likes this wine:

Not particularly complex but decent cedar nose and balanced palate – no off-putting vegetal notes or the like. A pleasant cabernet that my wife and I enjoyed very much with our covid carryout dinner at home. I bought a couple bottles out of curiosity to see "how bad" the 2013 BDX vintage really was, and what a pleasant surprise. We much preferred this to the 2013 Napa cab we had the other night, which was hot and heavy in comparison (and that was a great vintage there).

11/13/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

I agree with "Vide" and "Blaines's" assessments below. Tough, crunchy tannins and hot. The tannins will soften with time, but with only tepid dark fruits, I suspect it will only magnify the alcohol's presence even more. For the next bottle I'll try giving it a couple hours in the decanter. The 2010 vintage wasn't bad (90-ish), but this is just getting too boozy IMO...

10/24/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

What others describe as spice/tea/smokiness comes across to me as a nice bit of funk, the kind often found in Burgs but also some gamey sauvage, like you’d get from a northern Rhône. The whole clusters at work I surmise. Certainly unique among Cali pinots and even Rhys, and I quite enjoyed it. My first Home Vineyard and I’ll be back for more.

9/10/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

Lacking any kind of definition, cut, or structure. There is a good amount of acid but it's still somehow flabby and flat. I'm not an expert in the winemaking process but I think something went wrong here – it was an A+ vintage after all. Maybe it needs more time?

I've found this to be consistent amongst all 3 of this producers 1er cru Meursault sites for the vintage. Unfortunately I bought too much of all 3!

8/7/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

This is really excellent...perfect balance and bright freshness that begs for another sip. In reading the past notes I feel like many might be expecting a more stereotypical California chard, but this more closely resembles a top white burgundy than anything I’ve had from California. I’m not saying that’s a good or bad thing, just the style, and it’s impeccably well done.

6/20/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

I’ve had a few excellent Les Preuses Chablis, but this isn’t one of them. After opening the first bottle I thought it was mildly corked, so I opened another bottle. Same thing. As the previous taster suggested, it drinks like a condrieu with very little acid—a flat and insipid one. Not much in the way of a nose either. Lacking the steely fruit and palate-cleansing, energetic acidity that a proper Chablis exhibits.

5/4/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

Wow this is drinking really well now. Lovely nose and delicious, juicy palate of red fruit, cassis, licorice, and just enough tannic bite in the mid-palate, but with a clean finish–no bitterness. My wife enjoyed it too and she's not a huge fan of BDX in general.

I bought several of these at the local grocery store for $16/btl back in early 2013 and they were kept in my 55°/70%RH cellar since. These will easily make it to 15yrs old and maybe beyond given good storage conditions. Excellent QPR.

4/1/2020 - bullmrkt wrote:

Muddy, medium-ruby color fading to orange at the meniscus. Lovely aroma of dried roses. Very "Italian" palate, quite good. Seriously drying, tacky-gums tannins but they're not bitter, just part of the character. Drinking pretty well right now if you ask me – but sadly, my only bottle.

12/13/2019 - bullmrkt wrote:

Whoa, this bottle was singing tonight. Beautiful nose. At first a bit wound up with mouth watering, almost searing acidity followed by that subtle hint of plump, round fruit that white burgundy does so well. After an hour or so the acidity came into balance and the package was sublime with a looong finish. The dinner party was grabbing for the second half of the bottle. Excellent.

4/28/2018 - bullmrkt wrote:

Wet, moldy bathroom...corked.

4/9/2018 - bullmrkt wrote:

A simple, refreshing, easy-going white wine but I'm surprised this is Gruner Veltliner because it doesn't taste like any other I've had. If I had tasted this blind I would have sworn it was the Portuguese Homem Vinho Verde (Branco or Arinto), which is half the price. It even has the same very light carbonation, which doesn't bother me much in itself, but that I only seem to find in inexpensive white wines. Not up to par with the other Buchegger wines I've had.

3/7/2018 - bullmrkt wrote:

Beautiful cassis and cedar nose with a youthful crimson/purple color at the meniscus. Dark berries, coffee, and very present but pleasant tannins lead to a fairly long finish. The filled-out, almost robust mid-palate says this has the guts and structure to go a long way, yet it’s quite enjoyable at this early stage. I should note this was from one of the half bottles I purchased for just such a pre-screening. Hold unless you have a bunch of them.

3/2/2018 - bullmrkt wrote:

It’s rich—with a honeyed-honeydew nose and thick, creamy palate of roasted hazelnut, melon, and faintly smokey, lemon finish. It’s clearly carrying the weight of a warm vintage. I wasn’t much of a fan between 2011-2014 because it was everything I just described but with a heavy-handed dose of booze. Fortunately that seems to have subsided and it has become a more pleasant drink. I’d characterize this vintage as an acquired taste and much less approachable as compared to the cooler vintages. Seems to be aging well and they have plenty of stuffing, so I’d say they have at least a few years left in them.

1/6/2018 - bullmrkt wrote:

The nose has faded considerably since my 2014 note. A bit of red licorice, old leather, and fine dusty tannins. Pleasant enough, but this wine is clearly past peak based on my experience and I’d finish these up soon.

11/19/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

Really excellent. Not to play into their marketing, but this really is very well balanced (see prior notes) and absolutely one of the most Burgundian California chardonnays I’ve ever had at any price—which was very reasonable. My first Sandhi wine so color me impressed. I hope the pinots are this well done.

11/7/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

I had hopes time would be kind to this one, but as a friend has said before, no amount of time will fix a mediocre wine. Since nothing has changed, I’ll repost my Feb 2, 2014 note:

“I found this rather disappointing. Both the nose and palate seemed to be closed, one-dimensional, and dominated by oak, alcohol, and nondescript dark fruit. A big "meh" from me, hopefully my remaining bottles are different.”

11/2/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

I’m a big N. Rhône and Chapoutier fan, but this bottle didn’t jive with prior notes here. There was a bit of archetypal bloody meat and iron at first, but then there was this overwhelming “cheap wine” quality and strong oak that created a disjointed mess. An off bottle I hope—fingers crossed for the others.

10/29/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

Over five years on since the last bottle and this isn’t purple anymore, but rather ruby with a very slight tinge of browning on the miniscus. It still has that gamey, rose petal nose but the palate has really come together. The black fruits now seem much more red, herbs de Provence, and with just enough characteristically dry tannic bite and a long finish. This remains one of the more unique and distinctive French wines and it serves as a welcomed departure from the status quo.

10/21/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

This didn’t resemble my first bottle and it certainly doesn’t reconcile with the notes here, so I’m going to have to call this one flawed. At first I was thinking “wow they really took the whole cluster thing a little too far here,” but then I realized my first bottle wasn’t like this. Doesn’t seem corked, but rather an extreme steminess that I later thought might be some sulphur, but it’s definitely stems. Strange...

10/20/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

Wow this bottle is a massive improvement over my first two—it really filled out and put on some weight with juicy fruit, mid-palate body, spice, rhubarb, cola, and fresh, balanced acidity. It’s difficult to attribute the difference to bottle variation or the additional year of age, but I’m guessing it’s age and development. Drinking well!

8/12/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

First of my four bottles and one magnum--this has got to be a new record as far as cost to time in the cellar before opening the first bottle goes (it shouldn't, but it still seems odd to extensively age a $25 bottle). Anywho, I was optimistic given the prior notes and decided that tonight's duck sausage pizza and caprese salad was the time. The nose is a promising waft of classic Bordeaux cassis, and I'm trying to describe the fruit but I'm struggling to put aside the toweringly stiff, bitter, and drying tannins. I have a high tolerance for structured wines (and Bordeaux is among my favs), but these tannins are tough as nails. Drinkable, but a ways from enjoyable. It's difficult to reconcile my experience with the recent notes here, and I want to chalk it up to bottle variation, but this definitely isn't corked. I'll let the others sleep a bit more and cross my fingers that those tannins drop to the bottom of the bottle so the others elements can come forward (assuming they haven't faded themselves).

7/10/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

My first bottle was great but this one is a bust. Makes sense considering the widely varying notes here and probably had something to do with the discount...

7/8/2017 - bullmrkt Does not like this wine:

Agree on the alcohol...you can initially catch a hint of some fruit but the booze immediately takes over to ill and bitter effect. Poured it out, bleh.

7/7/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

It's difficult for me to reconcile with the previous notes because the bottle I opened is delicious. Effusively floral nose, herby/meaty complexity, sweet tannins, and a fresh juicy-fruit quality I find hard to come by that exhibits zero alcohol and begs for the next sip. Still drinking very well after 24hrs in the fridge. Wish I bought more of this...

2/18/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

It's everything you love about CDP's; herbs, spices, garrigue, forceful fruit, and dusty tannins but lithe and airy with absolutely no trace of heat. It's the ballerina to CDP's typical heavyweight punch. From a pristine magnum and drinking perfectly.

1/3/2017 - bullmrkt wrote:

Mildly corked unfortunately. Drinkable to some, but why bother.

12/18/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Darker golden color, wet leaves nose, dead palate: that's amoré...or rather, PREMOX. I wish Burgundy could figure out a solution to this ongoing dilemma because it's exceedingly frustrating--especially when it's an aged bottle that is difficult/impossible to replace with the same provenance. Buy from reputable vendors that will rectify the flawed bottle, folks.

12/7/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Ditto what "SMPHELPS" said. Light and easy-going. I'm glad I didn't pay more than the $20 I did though.

10/25/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

I suppose this is rather modern in style for a Northern Rhone, but it's so fresh, so pure, and so weightless compared to almost any new world syrah. Juicy fruit, cured game, subtle smokiness, and a clean finish. Drinking beautifully now from a 750--can't wait to dig into one of the magnums. Will it improve with age? Maybe, but I wouldn't bother risking the fruit going flat because it's delicious now.

7/11/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

This has been a frustrating wine because my first bottle in 2012 was excellent, but I've had two flawed bottles since. It's a "funky" wine with plenty of barnyard, so I suppose the variation shouldn't surprise me. This bottle was more reflective of that first, albeit everything was toned down and faded substantially. I'm absolutely no hedonist—wine buddies think I'm an acid nerd—and I'm telling you this was better 4 years ago. Still good, but this isn't Grand Cru Bordeaux/Burgundy, it was made to drink mid-term. Drink up by 2018, downhill from here IMO.

6/20/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Moist cork in good condition but I still broke it during removal. Surprisingly dark/rich color for its age, with just a faint hint of browning at the edge—wonderful nose was promising but the palate fell a bit short. After about 30min in the glass the wine became more coherent and integrated with some nice fruit still remaining. Good but nothing spectacular. Well-stored bottles will probably remain at this stage for a few more years but I'd drink them up soon.

6/8/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

See JeffreyLubowski's note below, completely agree and I'll add a point to the score. The only thing keeping it from a higher score is lack of sophisticated complexity, but I'm not expecting that at this level either. I guess maybe I'm an acid geek, but I don't find it too acidic whatsoever, it's just so fresh and so clean clean. Delicious, bright, juicy fruit with an amazing floral and gravel nose. This is the kind of wine that disappears so fast it seems like I had a glass or two but I look down and the bottle is gone. Whoops.

5/23/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Wow this has really improved in the two years since my previous bottle, +4pts. See previous note for a good description, but what struck me is how much more balanced and complex this has become. The fruit is wonderful and the savory notes have emerged making it more complex and interesting. The acidity is there but quietly playing it's supporting role instead of in your face. Even my white-despising wife asked for more (unheard of). Who would of thunk a white burg from a warm vintage would improve considerably with age, but there you have it.

I should also add that this note was written after night 2. Re-corked in the fridge for 24hrs. Good on night 1 but signing on night 2, so it could use a decant or long slow-ox.

3/22/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Instead of trying to describe the nose and flavors I'll tell you it's everything you expect a CdP to be (garrigue etc.), and as far as drinkability goes I find it surprisingly well balanced (considering the vintage). It's not heavy, muddled, or stewed—the bane of my existence—the freshness is there. The tannins are a bit drying with a mild bitter twinge, but again true to character. Overall it gets a "yum." Apparently it came together in the 18mo since the last notes here, so pop those corks and enjoy.

2/4/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

Back in March 2012 I was blown away by this wine, but a more recent bottle and this bottle both were shadows of that first. The nose is still decent but faded and the fruit has gone thin and uninspiring with a short finish. Edit: In hindsight this bottle was flawed after opening another.

2/3/2016 - bullmrkt wrote:

The fragrant nose of rubber and rose petals had me excited for the palate, but it didn't quite live up to the promise. Perfectly drinkable and quite pleasant but the fruit seemed a bit flat, it lacked complexity and the juicy zing I've experienced from other Barolo's, and it finishes with stick to the roof of your mouth palate drying tannins. Maybe this isn't a perfect bottle? It's worth checking-in now, but I'll hold off opening another bottle for at least a year.